Glenn Ervin Anders v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 20th District Court of Milam County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-11-00149-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
MARCH 14, 2012
GLENN ERVIN ANDERS, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY;
NO. CR22898; HONORABLE EDWARD P. MAGRE, JUDGE
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Glenn Ervin Anders, pleaded guilty to two counts of indecency with a
child by contact1 without a plea bargain agreement except as to the upper limits of the
sentence. The trial court sentenced appellant to confinement in the Institutional Division
of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a period of 10 years on each count with
the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant has appealed the judgment of the trial
court. We affirm.
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(1) (West 2011).
Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 498 (1967). In support of his
motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in
his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Id. at 744–45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813
(Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling
authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has
certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to
withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this
matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The Court has
also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a
response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support
an appeal but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and
made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any
arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824
(Tex.Crim.App. 2005).
We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with
counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
2
Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court=s
judgment is affirmed.2
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Pirtle, J., concurring.
Do not publish.
2
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client
a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.